HL Deb 18 March 1987 vol 485 cc1417-8
Lord Broxbourne

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether consideration has yet been given to the recent report of the Official Referees' Users' Committee; and whether action is in hand to effect the recommended improvements.

The Lord Chancellor

Yes, my Lords. No decisions have yet been taken on matters requiring primary legislation. Action is being taken to secure the improved accommodation required and on the necessity to secure the adequate reporting of decisions. Some rules of the Supreme Court have already been amended. Other amendments are under consideration.

Lord Broxbourne

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that characteristically helpful and encouraging reply. But does he not agree that it would be paradoxical, and contrary to the interests of justice, if these courts, 85 per cent. of whose work consists of resolving disputes in building and Civil engineering contracts which are noted for their complexity and massive documentation, have to continue in substandard accommodation and conditions? Will he therefore himself, and exhorting his colleagues, which may be no less important, promote and expedite the progress of this necessary improvement?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the courts are already started which will provide the accommo-dation. I think they ought to be in place by the end of 1988. As my noble friend with his knowledge of Roman history will realise, Rome was not built in a day.

Lord Silkin of Dulwich

My Lords, has the attention of the noble and learned Lord been drawn in particular to the case of Crouch? It is referred to in paragraph 5 of the report on which recommendations were made to the Mustill Committee which committee substan-tially supported them. The effect of that case, which was heard in 1984, is thought to be that multipliCity of proceedings is encouraged where it need not be. Can the noble and learned Lord give an indication of when legislation may be promoted which would cure that particular problem?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I have of course had my attention drawn to the decision in Crouch. I do not think there is any hard evidence yet that multipliCity of proceedings before the Official Referees has been encouraged. Any legislation would be primarily for the Department of Trade and Industry. I shall of course draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the point, but I think he is already seized of it.

There are two quite separate issues here. I do not want to trouble the House in detail with them, but one relates to the provision of the Arbitration Act 1950 which requires an Official Referee to take up a reference in which the parties agree that he as an Official Referee shall be the arbiter. The other relates to a much more esoteric question as to the powers of an Official Referee sitting as such to open up an architect's certificate. My information is that the second of the two questions requires rather careful and wider consultation than it has yet received.